CNN today has been breathlessly reporting on the Trayvon Martin/George Zimmerman trial. The thing that seems to have grabbed their attention the most is the fact that the prosecutions star witness just took a giant dump on the prosecutions case:
Now, on the one hand claims that “cracker” is not a racist term are patently ridiculous. On the other hand, most people just don’t care. However, so much ink and pixels and soundbites ahve been devoted to this issue that I’d be willing to bet that we’re going to see the rise of “creepy ass cracker” as a term to soon appear in large numbers on bumper stickers, buttons, tee-shirts and the like. I think few things will do better work to make sure that happens than those on the left/anti-Zimmerman side who are bound and determined to convince people that “cracker” isn’t a racist term worthy of attention. For example, this hysterical screed:
Who cares if Trayvon Martin called George Zimmerman a “creepy ass cracker”? White grievance-mongers, that’s who
What has been demonstrated here is that it was Martin his own self who introduced race into the confrontation. This is a fact that the witness hid for more than a year. The most likely explanation for that, despite her protestation to the contrary, is that she knew it at the very least made Martin look bad.
Is “cracker” considered as bad as “the N-Word?” No, and it’s due to the fact that those who would be described as “cracker” just don;t care enough to get all that upset. Words, after all, have no actual power; despite millenia of magical thinking with people trying to remake reality via incantation, there are, as yet, no words or sounds that are inherently dangerous or damaging. But to claim that a word doesn’t mean what it’s widely known to mean is just stooopid.
An exercise for the student: compare and contrast with Paula Deen.